Legal Experts: It’s a ‘Kangaroo Court’

( – Legal experts have called the “hush money” trial of Donald Trump “a kangaroo court,” stating that the detailed recent testimony provided by adult film actress Stormy Daniels regarding her alleged affair with former president should have been a sufficient basis for a mistrial.

Last week, Judge Juan Merchan dismissed two motions for a mistrial filed by Trump’s defense team, who argued that several questions posed to Daniels by prosecutors were extraneous and intended solely to bias the jury against Trump.

Legal professionals and ex-federal prosecutors have criticized Merchan’s ruling as flawed, potentially setting the stage for the verdict to be challenged on appeal.

The decision by Merchan to reject the mistrial requests did not come as a surprise, considering he initially allowed Daniels’ testimony, endorsing what some see as a baseless prosecutorial theory, The Daily Caller reports.

According to Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor, this theory does not clearly outline the specific criminal allegations central to the case against Trump.

Earlier in March, Merchan also rejected a plea from Trump’s legal team to bar Daniels from testifying. He later conceded that certain details shared by Daniels during her testimony could have been omitted.

“It is obvious that to camouflage this glaring gap in his case, [DA Alvin] Bragg is using the lurid details of the alleged tryst to sully Trump’s image in the hopes of turning the jury against him,” Moreno said.

“After twice rejecting the defense’s objections to Daniels’ appearing on the stand, Merchan’s later admonition that the defense did not object enough during her testimony is a laughable attempt to protect himself against future appellate scrutiny,” he added.

Trump is currently facing 34 felony charges, accused of falsifying business records to compensate his former attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment made to silence Daniels about their purported affair, which occurred shortly before the 2016 election.

The prosecution alleges that these acts were part of a larger scheme to manipulate the election outcome, an assertion they are attempting to substantiate through various testimonies, including that of Daniels.

Legal analyst Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation criticized Daniels’ testimony as unnecessary and irrelevant, stating that it served no purpose other than to damage Trump’s reputation and sway the jury.

“[The failure to grant a mistrial was] just one of the numerous mistakes this biased judge, who demonstrates every day in the courtroom that he is a political hack, has made that should allow the appeals court to quickly overturn any verdict against Trump,” Von Spakovsky commented.

Francey Hakes, another former federal prosecutor, also expressed concerns over the fairness of the trial.

“The term kangaroo court comes to mind… There is no way a jury would fail to be swayed by the glaring character attack on Trump, so it should not have been allowed. On appeal (if we get there), the Court of Appeals will view her entire testimony as having been objected to by the defense,” Hakes said.

Copyright 2024,